The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
farm3r
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The old testament has essentially no errors

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 715 times Debate No: 58682
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

The old testament has no errors. An error is simply a change affecting doctrine. An error can also be a contradiction within the text that cannot be reconciled.

first round is acceptance
farm3r

Con

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

It is commonly claimed that the Old Testament is full of errors and contradictions and doctrinal changes.

Looking at the existing manuscripts available, there are many methods for why it's essentially flawless:

1. The scribes were professionals and used accurate methods of preservation to ensure God's Word is transmitted properly:

"[The Masoretes wrote] with the greatest imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed calculations than these." (1)

2. A body of manuscripts known as the DSS were found in Qumran dating thousands of centuries before the Masoretic texts. Only 3 spelling mistakes were found (2)

3. The Old Testament has such small mistakes that the entire message isn't affected at all as we are about to see:

There are intentional changes and unintentional changes.

Bad eyesight was common as the manuscripts were copied in places poor lit.

Words may be replaced for a similar sounding word. Scribes would read words outloud so that others could hear. While slightly different words in spelling can be used, they are just that (3).

Sometimes scribes made a mistake of conflation and combined multiple readings into 1 (4).

This shows that the Old Testament has been accurately preserved

Sources:

1. F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering & Inglis Ltc., 1963), p. 117.

2. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 45-46.

3. Metzger, The Text, 191.

4. Metzger, The Text, 200.
farm3r

Con

farm3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

It appears my opponent has forfeited, i will wait...
farm3r

Con

farm3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

I'll keep waiting..
farm3r

Con

farm3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

I pretty much win this one, vote for me
farm3r

Con

farm3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
Ben if you understood how/why it was written you would understand it. The "nations" which supposedly came from the unions between Lot and his daughters were all the enemies of Israel. It was the authors way of insulting their parentage. The Bible has never been a history book.
Posted by farm3r 2 years ago
farm3r
Thanks for the tip ben!
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
Have you read Genesis 16? Ever? It's about two daughter drugging their father and haveing 'it' with him.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
So a contradiction will constitute an error? It doesn't have to be affecting doctrine?
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
That too, or he could argue that God is above logic, so the classic "omnipotence paradox" or something of the sort wouldn't apply.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
Can't almost anything be reconciled if your God is all powerful?
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Or I would argue that mass genocide and mind control don't comport with omnibenevolence, or that free will likely doesn't exist, etc. But even the that wouldn't impact doctrine.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
But what's "biblical?" That implies that hermeneutics isn't at all a factor and denominations follow the Bible to a tee. If that were the case, they'd all agree.

Take the biblical timeline, for instance. I could point out that the idea of 6000 year old earth doesn't comport with scientific evidence. If a religious denomination teaches it anyway, then that biblical passage had zero impact on doctrine.

That's just an example of something I'd run if I were debating you on this.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Doctrine doesn't really matter, pick x, pick up, if it's biblical, that will be the standard.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Nevermind.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Truth_seekerfarm3rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Truth_seekerfarm3rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff